Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too will be supporting this motion. In the last two years I've been advocating housing is a big issue in our riding and throughout the Northwest Territories, and to this day I still got a family member in Lutselk'e that are taking out 16 buckets of raw sewage from the bathtub. The only reason why is because they -- the homeowner is falling through the cracks of the policies of the Government of the Northwest Territories. So the other thing is that I also am going to be proposing to the housing corporation -- or Housing NWT is that, through partnerships with Indigenous governments in my riding, is to put together a proposal to CIRNAC in partnership with housing, like I said, but we need SEED money to help with the inspections and put the proposal together. So I got to start thinking outside the box to deal with housing in my riding so this is one avenue I'm going to do it. But overall, I'll be supporting this motion to help address the housing crisis here in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Thank you, Member from Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. To the motion. Member from Nunakput.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, again I wish to thank the Member for Deh Cho and the Member for Range Lake for bringing this motion. Like the previous motion, it raises important considerations.

First, I note that the motion calls for amendments to the Housing Northwest Territories Act as an action item related to the strategic renewal of Housing NWT. During the 19th Assembly, Housing NWT committed to pursuing a substantive review of the Housing Northwest Territories Act. I am happy to confirm that remains the intention of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate and agree with the emphasis that this motion places on the importance of the NWT Housing Forum, which is another product of the strategic renewal of Housing NWT.

The NWT Housing Forum was established in early 2023 as a multilateral forum for cooperation and collaboration between Housing NWT and Indigenous governments on housing. Mr. Speaker, the NWT Housing Forum has already played a key role in the policy and program review that was conducted jointly with Housing NWT between 2021 and 2023 during the 19th Assembly. The NWT Housing Forum continues to meet to promote cooperation and collaboration between Housing NWT and Indigenous governments on housing. In fact, it met again just yesterday. It is already doing some of the things that this motion calls for. However, it is important to note that the NWT Housing Forum is not the GNWT's to direct. It is co-led by Housing NWT and the Indigenous government and its mandate involves more than providing Housing NWT with feedback. Participation in the NWT Housing Forum is voluntary and flexible, and I note it may not lend itself to a legislated approach. Of course, any changes to the structure or foundation of the NWT Housing Forum would need to be considered carefully in conjunction with the Indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories that jointly established it.

Mr. Speaker, as this motion contains recommendations to the government, Cabinet will be abstaining to carefully consider the recommendations called for in this motion. We look forward to reviewing the recommendations and providing a full response within 120 days. Quyananni, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Nunakput. To the motion.

Question has been called. Does the mover wish to close the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote. Thank you.

The question has been called, and the Member from Deh Cho has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.

All opposed. All those abstaining, please rise.

The votes, 11 for, zero against, and 7 abstentions. The motion has been carried.

---Carried

Motions. Notices of motion for first reading of bills. First reading of bills. Minister of Finance.

Pursuant to Rule 8.2(3), Bill 6 is deemed to have been read for the first time and is ready for second reading.

First reading of bills. Second reading of bills. Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Member for Yellowknife Centre, that Bill 3, Carbon Tax Repeal Act, be read a second time.

This bill amends the Petroleum Products and Carbon Tax Act by removing existing taxation measures for the carbon tax and the definition of natural gas while enabling the Minister to provide grants for emissions reduction projects. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, no matter where you stand on the debate over carbon pricing, it has become clear that the Northwest Territories carbon pricing regime is leaving Northerners in the cold.

Several years after its introduction, the GNWT still cannot clearly state how successful its price on carbon has been at reducing emissions while their rebate system has not kept up with the increased in cost of living. In a previous Assembly, the Standing Committee on Government Operations clearly warned the government that their rebate strategy was inadequate and raised doubts regarding whether or not the GNWT could clearly grasp the impact that their carbon pricing regime would have on Northerners.

Mr. Speaker, the committee at the time raised a number of key concerns. It was missing too much information from the department, its concern regarding cost of living, the struggle to understand the effects on Northerners, the prioritization of large scale mining over small businesses and consumers, the lack of understandings on how emissions will be measured, and serious consultations with -- serious issues with how consultations were performed with not only the standing committee but members of the public. And this is all extending from previous issues that were raised by the standing committee of the 18th Legislative Assembly, of which I was a Member, that raised similar concerns at the time. So both times that this legislation has been brought forward in this House it has not had the endorsement of the standing committee, of its oversight committee, which is significant because the role of the standing committee is to improve bills. Both times the passage of the legislation has been contentious to say the least. It has passed. But it was not unanimous. It was by no means unanimous and not just drawn on straight ideological lines. This is not a matter of left versus right or conservative versus progressive of carbon tax versus the economy is stupid. You know, this is a much broader issue where individuals on both the -- who are very concerned with the future of the climate are unhappy with our carbon tax regime and people who are concerned about affordability are unhappy with it. And they say you know, good public policy that results in compromise leaves everyone unhappy. But when it's this significant, I think we need to ask ourselves is it really working? And for me, the fundamental question is, is carbon pricing as designed, this made-in-the North system, reducing emissions? I've asked that question, and the answer is we can't tell you because we don't know. And it is a complicated question. There's many factors that affect the reduction of emissions, but we should be able to have some idea of how this pricing is working to meet its intended public policy.

The public policy goal of carbon pricing is not to provide rebates to Northerners. That's a choice, a policy choice, that's been made to ensure that the cost of living is not unduly burdened and we drive people out of the Northwest Territories. But I think if you talk to Northerners, and we all have because we only recently were talking to them to get the seats we have in this House today, they will tell you that these costs are becoming increasingly unaffordable. And it's not just the carbon tax. Of course it's the high cost of fuel. It's the high cost of food. It's the high cost of rents. It's the high cost of mortgages. Everything's going up across the board. And we are simply not meeting the needs of Northerners, which is creating incentives for them to leave.

So when we look at our carbon pricing regime, we have to ask what are we doing with this? And I think what we've heard through successive -- through this finance Minister, the previous finance Minister as well, that this has been forced on the Northwest Territories. No one wants this but we have to do it, so we're going to build our own system to shield Northerners from the costs. Yet we see our sister territory Nunavut, and our friends in Yukon as well, they allow the federal government to collect the tax, administer the tax to the federal backstop, and still control their own rebate systems. So what this bill proposes to do is exactly that. It's to put the -- it's to cut out the middleman and put the responsibility back in the hands of the people who imposed this carbon tax regime on the Northwest Territories in the first place.

And there are good reasons to consider -- to consider the federal system if folks are concerned that a repeal of our system would lead to catastrophic consequences. Under the federal backstop, 90 percent of revenues collected by the federal government are returned to individuals through rebate cheques. The federal rebate covers the direct carbon costs for 80 percent of households in this country. Approximately 70 percent of households receive more in tax rebates than they receive -- than they pay in carbon taxes, and the remaining 10 percent of that tax, the 90 percent that goes to individuals, 10 percent goes to fund efficiency projects for small businesses, schools, and hospitals in each province and territory. This -- those -- that's just an example of what it looks like on the tin.

Now, what I think we'll be able to have more of a bespoke system that meets northern needs, that's why this bill was drafted expressly to leave the rebate system alone, and I know that some -- there are some critics of that. There are critics of the rebate system. But I think we can work on that as an Assembly together to fine tune it. But this bill represents a reset point where, again, we can put -- we can cut out the middleman, we can put the authority back in the hands of the federal government, of the Prime Minister, and he can defend this pricing system and work with our government to make it work for Northerners. I don't think if there's a change at the national level and this tax is repealed, I don't think there's anyone in this Chamber who is going to insist that we maintain our own. And to me, that doesn't speak as something that was created by Northerners for Northerners to meet northern priorities. That sounds like something that's been imposed on us. And if that's the way we feel about it, let's give it -- let's make the person responsible for it while we continue to direct the flow of revenue back into the rebate -- into the rebate programs that we've worked carefully to develop over the years. I believe this is possible. I don't believe we have such a poor relationship with the federal government that they will close the door on that initiative, and we won't be able to have those discussions.

I want to be clear, though, for those looking for an end to carbon pricing in the Northwest Territories, this bill will not achieve that. There's no -- because as soon as our tax goes, we'll be noncompliant with the federal legislation and the backstop will apply. There's no escaping carbon pricing, nor should there be. There should be a price on pollution. We live in a world that is irreconcilably affected by a changing climate. We just -- two-thirds of the Northwest Territories became climate refugees last summer. Our ice roads are unreliable. Like the mighty Mackenzie River is no longer reliable.

Our forest fire seasons are -- have become catastrophic. It's not just here. It's in other places as well. But this is evidence of a changing climate, a climate that demands action. So I want to be clear in my support for this legislation and bringing it forward it is not a rebuke of putting a price on pollution. But we have to put a price on pollution where it's not just a tax on people living in the Northwest Territories, where there's alternatives for low carbon options, low carbon fuels, low carbon technologies, that can allow Northerners to escape the tax and invest in something that can help -- that can help fight climate change. That's what we want. The technology's not -- just not there yet. And what this will have the effect is making sure people don't live here. And I don't think that's the goal. I don't think that's the goal of carbon tax. I know it's not the goal of carbon tax. It's to innovate. It's to create an environment where we can -- we can protect our climate and -- and, you know, do our part as individuals, as consumers.

So I would like to see us build something that works better, but I don't think we can continue on by continuing to demand exemptions as a government by having finance Ministers who consistently -- who insist that they'll repeal it if it's struck down at the federal level. That's not clear policy. It's confusing. It's muddled. We're not sure if we're supporting climate change. We're not sure if we're anti-carbon tax. We're just in this mushy middle. But we're one of only three jurisdictions that has their own system. Everyone else uses the federal backstop with either a -- the federal rebate program or their own rebate program. So, again, this bill is to provide policy clarity to the public, to our national partners, to our international partners, about who is responsible for carbon pricing and how we're going to administer it locally in the Northwest Territories.

And I want to be clear that I do -- I respect the work that my honourable colleague has done, the Minister of Finance, and I want her to be able to continue that work in partnership with Ottawa. But we need to give them the responsibility. We need to pass this legislation, hand the reins back to Ottawa so if there are changes in the future to the tax, whether it's repealed at the national level, whether there's a change to home heating fuel rebates, we're not waiting months for these things to happen, or we're not bringing back, you know, emergency debates to immediately strike it down. We can do this in a way that if there's changes at the national level, we're not mirroring them anymore. They just happen, and we just control the flow of the rebates. I think that's a much more neatly tied together system, and it clearly puts the responsibility back where it belongs with the federal government. And I call on this House to support this bill. Thank you very much

Thank you, Member from Range Lake. To the motion. Member from Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In this process of technology, my laptop died just before so I'm going to go with the roughest of notes with the most genuine of hearts. It's true; I always speak from my heart.

So, Mr. Speaker, regardless of the issue, I wish to speak to one theme I hope is true is the fact that when I do speak for an issue, I do care about it and -- in the sense of that the impact this has on Northerners is -- and the choices we make. Now, keep in mind the last Assembly barely passed its own mechanism to manage its own carbon tax processes and, frankly, I don't think they did enough time and enough soul searching to examine what's the best method for Northerners.

Now, it's not easy for me to say let's give it back to the feds to manage. I mean, I was here during devolution when all we talked about is making sure those people in Ottawa stop making choices for us; let us make our own choices. But, I mean, it's true on this particular one why would we carry the burden of the federal government system on this particular one?

I think, as my honourable colleague, who I appreciate initiating this -- the bill, the process, and conversation at the very least, has it right. I mean, if we cannot manage these things by knowing what they're doing, why are we doing them? And I mean, it's significantly stressful and I struggle with trying to figure out that if we don't know if it's having any positive impact, then I mean we have to question why are we doing these things? And then furthermore why are we shifting the burden on our citizens.

Now, I also agree the fact that there -- you know, there may be the slightest or thinnest or modest of veils that we don't know what's going to happen next. And that's not a defence of doing nothing. As a matter of fact, that's almost the worst defence of status quo, just because we do it this way we should continue with this way. But as the hallmark of asking what's relevant, why are so many jurisdictions choosing to use the federal system versus go with your own ways, the Northwest Territories is doing it.

I'm not convinced we're doing it better. I'm not convinced we can be as nimble with these types of responses and problems that we see across Canada. I'm convinced that the federal government still doesn't recognize our unique challenges. Yes, they've come part way in all fairness. I should tip my hat to that. But we must keep the advantage of working with them, and I think that they will find a way to work with us if we choose. So, Mr. Speaker, without the broadness of my finer detailed notes as my computer is just barely on now, I'll just leave it at that. But what's key to this, ultimately it's second reading, Mr. Speaker, is this gives the chance for this bill to go to committee to have the forthright and honest discussion. We will all have constituents that come to our door and say we think this is a good idea, then we'll walk out the next door and somebody will say no, this is the worst idea. But getting it to committee allows the committee to do the detailed analysis, the time, talk to people, talk to Northerners, talk to the mining industry, the construction industry, talk to all people to find out the impacts on how they feel on this one and what we can do. But most importantly, in that context, is what can we do better for them.

So in that service to the people of the North, I'll be supporting this bill, and I encourage all my colleagues to give it the opportunity for a full and a robust discussion with Northerners by giving it to committee so that we can have that honest consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member from Yellowknife Centre. To the motion. Member from Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I cannot support sending this bill to committee because I believe this bill could not accomplish the goals or solve any of the concerns that Members in this House and members of the public have been raising about the carbon tax. I fear that by sending it to committee, far from creating policy clarity we will be causing even greater confusion and chaos amongst the general public, community governments, and industry stakeholders about what is happening with the carbon tax, and that this could cause more harm than good.

The first problem is that the title of the bill is the Carbon Tax Repeal Act, so people could be forgiven for thinking that the carbon tax will be repealed and therefore they won't have to pay the carbon tax anymore. But this is not true. The carbon tax will continue to exist until the federal government cancels it. The GNWT cannot change how much people in the NWT are charged for the carbon tax. So let me just repeat that for clarity. This bill cannot change anything around how much carbon tax people in our communities have to pay. All that this bill can change is who collects the tax. It will mean that Ottawa collects our money instead of the GNWT.

I have not heard any of my constituents asking for this change. And for the life of me, I cannot understand why we would go to all this trouble, spend the resources and the time of Members and staff, so that we could have less control over the same carbon tax.

Now if committee wants to examine aspects of our system around rebates or offsets that need to be changed, they are free to do that without this bill, without handing the power over tax collection to Ottawa. If committee wants to examine how we might ensure that our carbon tax would disappear in the event that the federal government eliminated the carbon tax requirement, they are free to do that without this bill. I myself would certainly support stopping any net carbon tax revenues from going into the general revenues of this government. I would want to ensure that they are spent rather on renewable energy projects to mitigate climate change. But this bill takes us in the opposite direction from that. We would not have any net revenues left to go toward renewable energy alternatives in the NWT.

This could also cause particular financial uncertainty for the mining industry because the NWT has taken a significantly different approach in how we apply the carbon tax and rebates to industry versus the federal government's backstop. Mining operations in the NWT have made their financial decisions and plans based on the existing NWT approach, and I don't see the point in pulling the rug out from under them at this point, or even speculating about changing things at this point. I haven't actually heard anyone calling for our system of carbon tax on large industrial emitters to be studied again or overhauled. I have heard Members saying that they want to provide an environmental certainty for industry, and this does the opposite of that.

So what I've heard from movers of this bill is that for the most part they want to keep the status quo system of offset payments in our system for large emitters. They just want the federal government to administer the same system that we already have instead of the GNWT. The problem is that as soon as we repeal our carbon tax, the federal government is in control. And they don't have to agree to administer the system we already have. We would have to plead with them. We would have to spend significant time and resources and political capital to try and convince them to bring us back to where we already are now. And there's a real risk that they would say no. And that's not about poor relationship between our government and the federal Ministers or our Ministers and the federal Ministers. It's about the fact that the federal government officials have finite time for us. And of all the things that we need to be talking to them about, negotiating with them about, I don't think this should be high up on the list.

So due to the risk of confusion and uncertainty and wasting of our political capital, I do not support us going any further down this path that this bill would lead us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member for Yellowknife North. Colleagues, by the authority given to me as Speaker under Rule 2.2(4), I hereby authorize the House to sit beyond the daily hours of adjournment to consider the business of the House.

To the motion. Member from Inuvik Boot Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's important to note that this is going to second reading. It's important to note that, you know, we have committees that do important work. I think, you know, in this case I think there's enough information required, no matter what your opinion is or what -- how if you think that, you know, the bill is appropriate, if you think that the existing system is working better, I know there are concerns. I have concerns whether or not how it's going to affect the mineral industry. The mineral industry right now, as my colleague has said, has based their operations on the existing large emitter program. Is the fed's system better than that; will that make a difference? I know there are pieces of the new bill that are addressing that but are they enough? So I think, in my opinion, given this is going to second reading, I support it going to second reading, I support it going to committee, I support getting more information on this, to hearing it out, and to allow the committee to do its work so when it comes to third reading I can make a decision that I feel is an informed decision and a right decision.

To the motion. Member from Frame Lake.